Affordable Dual Core from AMD: Athlon 64 X2 3800+
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 1, 2005 9:36 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
For the past couple of months, we've asked, hoped and dreamed for it, and today, AMD is launching it - the $354 Athlon 64 X2 3800+; the first somewhat affordable dual core CPU from AMD.
If necessity is the mother of invention, then the birth of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ should be no surprise to anyone. In one of their strongest CPU paper-launches ever, AMD put their best foot forward this past May and introduced the Athlon 64 X2 processor. While AMD was late to the desktop dual core game compared to Intel, the Athlon 64 X2 processor had absolutely no problem outperforming Intel's Pentium D. But at the end of the day, despite AMD's clear victory, our recommendations were quite complicated, thanks to one major flaw in AMD's execution: price.
The cheapest dual core Pentium D processor could be had for under $300, yet AMD's cheapest started at $537. Intel was effectively moving the market to dual core, while AMD was only catering to the wealthiest budgets.
The Pentium D 820, running at 2.8GHz and priced at $280, offered the most impressive value that we've seen in a processor in quite some time - if you could properly use the power. Multitaskers and users of multithreaded applications found themselves with the cheapest 2-way workstation processor that they had seen since the SMP Celerons and ABIT's BP6. While Intel satiated our demands for affordable dual core, we knew it wasn't the perfect option. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 was the better overall performer, just at the very wrong price point.
After much pressure from all sides and some very important manufacturing changes, AMD went ahead with the decision to release a cheaper Athlon 64 X2. The decision was made around the time of Computex 2005 and that's when we first heard of the $354 Athlon 64 X2 3800+.
The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is basically two Athlon 64 3200+ cores stuck together, each running at 2.0GHz and each with its own 512KB L2 cache. This is a full 200MHz lower clock per core than the 4200+, but with the same amount of cache.
The original Athlon 64 X2 (Toledo core) processors all had the same exact specifications:
Update: As many of you have correctly pointed out, the 4200+ and 4600+ were available as both Toledo and Manchester cores. More than half of the Athlon 64 X2's transistor count is spent on cache, which means that if there are going to be any manufacturing defects on the chip, they will more than likely occur in the processor's cache. Born out of that fact, the Toledo based Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and 4200+ were nothing more than 4800/4400+ X2s with too many manufacturing defects; instead of throwing the bad cores away, AMD simply rebranded them and sold them at lower price points. The problem with this approach is that an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ took the same amount of space on a wafer as an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, despite only having half the cache. Thus we have the Manchester core: a core designed from the ground up to only feature a 512KB L2 cache per core.
As manufacturing ramps up, yields improve and it is now possible to actually create a cost-reduced Athlon 64 X2, using the smaller Manchester die - and that's where the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ gets its cost savings.
The transistor count of the 3800+ goes down to 154 million, and the die gets shrunk down to 147 mm2 compared to the 233.2M and 199 mm^2 of its bigger brothers (4800/4400+). The thermal envelope of the new core also dropped from 110W down to 89W, both still lower than Intel's Pentium D or single-core Pentium 4 for that matter.
With a smaller die and lower transistor count, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is able to support its $354 price tag.
If necessity is the mother of invention, then the birth of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ should be no surprise to anyone. In one of their strongest CPU paper-launches ever, AMD put their best foot forward this past May and introduced the Athlon 64 X2 processor. While AMD was late to the desktop dual core game compared to Intel, the Athlon 64 X2 processor had absolutely no problem outperforming Intel's Pentium D. But at the end of the day, despite AMD's clear victory, our recommendations were quite complicated, thanks to one major flaw in AMD's execution: price.
The cheapest dual core Pentium D processor could be had for under $300, yet AMD's cheapest started at $537. Intel was effectively moving the market to dual core, while AMD was only catering to the wealthiest budgets.
The Pentium D 820, running at 2.8GHz and priced at $280, offered the most impressive value that we've seen in a processor in quite some time - if you could properly use the power. Multitaskers and users of multithreaded applications found themselves with the cheapest 2-way workstation processor that they had seen since the SMP Celerons and ABIT's BP6. While Intel satiated our demands for affordable dual core, we knew it wasn't the perfect option. AMD's Athlon 64 X2 was the better overall performer, just at the very wrong price point.
After much pressure from all sides and some very important manufacturing changes, AMD went ahead with the decision to release a cheaper Athlon 64 X2. The decision was made around the time of Computex 2005 and that's when we first heard of the $354 Athlon 64 X2 3800+.
The Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is basically two Athlon 64 3200+ cores stuck together, each running at 2.0GHz and each with its own 512KB L2 cache. This is a full 200MHz lower clock per core than the 4200+, but with the same amount of cache.
Note: The 512KB X2s are available in both 154M and 233M transistor versions.
A New Core
AMD didn't sit on the X2 3800+ just because they were greedy and expected everyone to gobble up the $500+ parts. Instead, today's release is the result of a slightly revised core, codenamed Manchester, specifically designed to cut costs.The original Athlon 64 X2 (Toledo core) processors all had the same exact specifications:
- 233.2M transistorsFor the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and the 4400+, the shared transistor count and die size made sense. They both were identical from a transistor standpoint, one chip just ran 200MHz faster than the other. But the 4200+ and the 4600+ weren't identical; unlike the 4800/4400+ X2s, the 4200+ and 4600+ only had a 512KB L2 cache per core, not a 1MB L2.
- 199 mm2 die size
- 110W max power
Update: As many of you have correctly pointed out, the 4200+ and 4600+ were available as both Toledo and Manchester cores. More than half of the Athlon 64 X2's transistor count is spent on cache, which means that if there are going to be any manufacturing defects on the chip, they will more than likely occur in the processor's cache. Born out of that fact, the Toledo based Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and 4200+ were nothing more than 4800/4400+ X2s with too many manufacturing defects; instead of throwing the bad cores away, AMD simply rebranded them and sold them at lower price points. The problem with this approach is that an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ took the same amount of space on a wafer as an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, despite only having half the cache. Thus we have the Manchester core: a core designed from the ground up to only feature a 512KB L2 cache per core.
As manufacturing ramps up, yields improve and it is now possible to actually create a cost-reduced Athlon 64 X2, using the smaller Manchester die - and that's where the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ gets its cost savings.
The transistor count of the 3800+ goes down to 154 million, and the die gets shrunk down to 147 mm2 compared to the 233.2M and 199 mm^2 of its bigger brothers (4800/4400+). The thermal envelope of the new core also dropped from 110W down to 89W, both still lower than Intel's Pentium D or single-core Pentium 4 for that matter.
With a smaller die and lower transistor count, the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is able to support its $354 price tag.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
109 Comments
View All Comments
gibhunter - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
Whatever, point of entry into dual core is $250. Like it or not, if someone wants it for what I said, than the cheapest way to get there is with an Intel chipset with built-in graphics and the P4 D820. For my personal computer I'd go with the AMD, but for a cheap PC that will be good for everything but gaming, the Intel solution is the way to go.Ps. The D820 is not as hot as you make it out to be.
krisia - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
Uh, funny, My Intel D820 runs the same games I was running on my AMD 3500 and I can't tell any difference.And, no the 945 mobos and DDR2 memory aren't any higher in price if you look...
I voted with my $$$. :)
SDA - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. This is stock advice. And anyway, this isn't about whether or not you're happy with your purchase decision, it's about whether that purchase decision is a genuinely good choice. Bose speaker buyers are generally happy with their purchases, but that doesn't mean Bose speakers are any good.krisia - Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - link
Well, I have my systems OC'd, the D820 by 10% and my ADM 64 3500 by 20% and ran x2demo. Both systems running Geforce 6600GT. Came out virtually the same frame rates. As I paid less $$$ for my D820, yes I'm happy with it for what I do... Any other analogies that might help?SDA - Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - link
I never said it was a bad choice, krisia, only that you can't extrapolate from your own very limited experience and tests and say that it must be a better choice in general. I'm sure that you made the perfect choice for your situation, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice for everyone/anyone/someone else.Again, the Bose analogy. A Bose buyer might put their favorite CD in their Bose system and decide that it sounds just fine compared to their neighbor's stereo. They made a fine choice for them, but that doesn't mean it's a choice they should recommend to others. Ever.
Any other analogies that might help? ;)
SDA - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
Use the reply button to reply to comments. ;)Actually, I would say that I have a fairly accurate idea of how hot the 820 and 830 run. The 820 is quite possible-- easy, even, to cool (how could it not be), but the fact of the matter is that it is nearly impossible to get a silent air-cooled system with one, and it is quite difficult to get one that's merely quiet instead of "noise-reduced." If you beg to differ, you'd be arguing with an SPL meter, meaning that you have probably been deafened already.
Also, "whatever" is not an adequate response to "Intel dual core motherboards make up most of the cost difference." Try again.
gibhunter - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
Repeat after me: NOT CHEAP ENOUGH!!!I do not care that it's faster than Intel's dual core cpu. Intel's CPU is $100 cheaper. If I'm building a new PC for web, office and occasional DVD encode, I'm buying the Intel chip. Plain and simple, the $100 sure as hell makes a difference. No enthusiasts will go for the 3800+ unless he is willing to OC the hell out of it. Your regular guy that just wants a good, stable PC with adequate power to do anything and dual core to be able to encode video and happily keep on making his powerpoint presentation, the Intel chip will aloow him to do so and save a hundred bucks in the process.
Whatever, AMD is obviously not listening.
Zebo - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
AMD's cost much more to make because they must have perfection over two cores on a single die vs. intel who slaps two prescotts together. You pay a performance price for Intels way of doing things which is reflected in the lower price.Too bad you're only looking at CPU price.. when you consider power, mobo, and ram the pentium dually setup costs more money.
fitten - Thursday, August 4, 2005 - link
AMD's cost much more to make because they must have perfection over two cores on a single die vs. intel who slaps two prescotts together.What are you smoking? The AMD X2s are a single chip. The Intel parts are also a single chip. Intel does not "slap" two Prescotts together to make the dual core parts. They are two cores on a contiguous piece of silicon just like the AMD parts are. Now, you can talk about Intel's implementation of dual core logic not being as good as AMD's and the like, but please quit with the myth that Intel's dual core chips are actually MCMs because they aren't.
kmmatney - Monday, August 1, 2005 - link
From what I can see, Intel 955 chipset motherboards are around $180 - $220, which is a lot more expensive than a decent Socket 939 motherboard. SO overall thge system cost is much cheaper than the Intel 830, and very close to the 820.